Sullivan & Cromwell LLP v. Adesh Singh
Claim Number: FA2305002043308
Complainant is Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen J. Elliott of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Adesh Singh (“Respondent”), South Africa.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sullcrorn.com>, registered with Hostinger, UAB.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 5, 2023; Forum received payment on May 5, 2023.
On May 5, 2023, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sullcrorn.com> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 30, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sullcrorn.com. Also on May 10, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 1, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, is a multinational law firm.
Complainant asserts rights to the SULLCROM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other agencies worldwide.
Respondent’s <sullcrorn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the SULLCROM mark, merely misspelling the mark by switching the “m” with “rn” to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <sullcrorn.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SULLCROM mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use the domain name as it addresses an inactive website.
Respondent registered and uses the <sullcrorn.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has a mail exchange record that was registered for the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent’s use of a privacy shield when registering the at-issue domain name shows bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, Respondent’s inactive holding of the disputed domain name shows bad faith registration and use. Finally, Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the SULLCROM mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in SULLCROM.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain passively.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of SULLCROM, as well as any of its other registrations worldwide, is sufficient to established Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”).
The at-issue domain name contains a recognizable misspelling of Complainant’s SULLCROM trademark. The domain name consists of Complainant’s trademark with its “m” replaced by a similarly appearing “rn” with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between the <sullcrorn.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <sullcrorn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SULLCROM mark. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD ‘.com.’ This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.”); see also Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <sullcrorn.com> shows that “Adesh Singh” is its registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is known by the <sullcrorn.com> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address an inactive webpage. Browsing to <sullcrorn.com> returns a welcoming message from the domain name’s hosting provider. Respondent’s passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”); see also Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <sullcrorn.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent holds <sullcrorn.com> passively. Respondent’s failure to actively use the at-issue domain name shows bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400- Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”).
Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark or, as appears to be the case here, will read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark. Although misspelled, Complainant’s SULLCROM trademark is nevertheless clearly recognizable when reading Respondent’s <sullcrorn.com> domain name. Notably, the spelling error contained in Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name may easily be overlooked if one does not scrutinize the domain name especially given that the domain name’s “rn” very much resembles the “m” that it replaces in Complainant’s trademark. Internet users reading the domain name, as intended by Respondent, may thus mistake the confusingly similar domain name for Complainant’s genuine domain name. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sullcrorn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page